What would happen if researchers were given more control over their own funding and the funding of others? Hadas Shema looks at the results from an article that makes the case for a collective approach to the allocation of science funding. By funding people directly rather than projects, money and time would be saved and researchers would be given more freedom than the current system.

Funding agencies allocate funds for scientific research mainly based on peer-review of research proposals. In 2010, more than 15,000 researchers peer-reviewed more than 55,000 proposals. I think we can all agree that the current process is expensive and time-consuming. Now, the authors of a new article propose a new system that they believe will save us lots of time, money and trouble. The article is called “Collective allocation of science funding: from funding agencies to scientific agency,” by Johan Bollen (of the Twitter-predicts-stock market fame), David Crandall, Damion Junk, Ying Ding and Katy Börner.

Basically, the authors would like to give each scientist (they focus on the U.S., but I suppose the system would work in other countries) a certain amount of money for research, of which she or he will have to send a percentage to other scientists who do research they consider funding-worthy. Every researcher gets the same amount, no matter which institute she resides in, from the government. However, the sum she gets from other researchers will depend on her skills and performance as a researcher. The authors give the following example; suppose every senior researcher in the US gets $100,000 each year and a certain researcher received, in addition, $200,000 from other researchers. She’s obligated to give 50%, or $150,000 to other researchers, and save the rest for her own research. It’ll save lots of time and money that are now spent on writing proposals and peer-reviewing.

The authors conducted a simulation using citations as proxy for fund distribution. They extracted 37 million academic articles from Thomson-Reuters’ Web of science for the years 1992-2010, which contained 770 million references overall. Then they extracted out of more than 4 million authors those who, in the years 2000-2010, authored at least one article per year. The overall number of names was 867,872. They counted for each pair of researchers the number of citations they exchanged each year (1992-2010) and also retrieved records of 109,919 unique scientists who received 347,364 grants from the NIH and the NSF.

The simulation began with a budget of $100,000 for each author, and assumed that the amount each researcher would allocate would be in proportion to the times they cited other researchers during the 5 years before the simulation. Of course, it’s a proxy – researchers wouldn’t necessarily allocate funds to the same researchers they cite.

Then, the authors matched names based on first, last names and middle initials with the NSF and NIF funding records. 65,610 names matched, and they compared the actual funding for 2000-2010 to the funding predicted. The correlations were R = 0.268 (Pearson) and Spearman p=0.300.

The authors emphasize that their proposal funds people rather than projects, which allows researchers more freedom than the current system. They suggest that perhaps researchers would be forbidden to contribute to their close collaborators, advisors and so forth, and that funding decisions would remain secret. I don’t know if those suggestions can stop researchers from creating “research cartels” where two researchers or more exchange funding, but we’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there. This is one way to turn the “citation economy” into an actual, money-based one. Bollen predicted in his 14th International Society of Scientometrics and Infometrics Conference (ISSI) keynote that prominent researchers would become funding agencies themselves. Imagine a world with way less grant proposals to write! It’s an intriguing concept, but I doubt governments would allow it (JUST GIVE THEM MONEY??!!)

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Impact of Social Science blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our Comments Policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

About the Author

Hadas Shemais an Information Science graduate student at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. She studies the characteristics of online scientific discourse and is a member of the European Union’s Academic Careers Understood through Measurement and Norms (ACUMEN) project.

8 Comments

[…] “What would happen if researchers were given more control over their own funding and the funding of others? Hadas Shema looks at the results from an article that makes the case for a collective approach to the allocation of science funding …” (more) […]

[…] What would happen if researchers were given more control over their own funding and the funding of others? Hadas Shema looks at the results from an article that makes the case for a collective approach to the allocation of science funding. By funding people directly rather than projects, money and time would be saved and researchers would be given more freedom than the current system. (…) – LSE blog 'Impact of Social Sciences', by Hadas Shema, September 4, 2013 […]

Interesting proposal. The details would have to be worked out but, in principle, it might very well be a more efficient use of our taxes. Cartels could be prevented by preventing funding of co-authors, or co-authors of co-authors, to the nth degree. Similarly, reciprocity (a funds b and b funds a) and circularity (a funds b, b funds c, c funds a) could be also be prevented. How large a circle? I do not know. Big enough. It would also have to be decided how to deal with multiple authors.

However, the proposal does not go far enough. Why limit it to senior researchers?Why not fund people directly based on their recent (or not so recent) citation records? perhaps corrected for their recent (or not so recent) funding levels.

I think the researchers were going by citations and senior researchers because for them the simulation was most convenient. Look at it as a thought exercise. I’m sure that if a government was to adopt the proposal there will be many changes.

I don’t think this would be good for someone in a small, new, or unpopular field, or who has controversial ideas. They currently have the chance to make their case, at least, to a reviewing committee. This proposal looks to me as though it would increase homogeneity and ‘playing safe’ in research and publication.

Interesting, but how do you know what people are planing to do if there are no project proposals? Writing proposals actually makes you think about what you plan to do much more carefully. The idea to make funding decisions exclusively based on previous work is in my opinion silly. It’s even more silly to develop a system that uses impact factors and citation numbers as the main criterion we would use to make decisions who gets funded and who doesn’t. It would generate research bubbles as more popular fields would be funded instead of higher quality research.

I could imagine that the next step towards a better system would involve opening of the application review process and involvement of the entire research community in the decision-making. Projects would still have to be written, but the entire community would decide what gets funded and what doesn’t. I think this would be a better way to go.